Superman vs Batman is isn’t…
Donald Trump’s ridiculous, embarrassing—but typical!—“let’s see if we can lower the shameful level of rhetoric in this campaign even lower” statement at a campaign stop in Florida yesterday:
“Did you see where Biden wants to take me to the back of the barn? Me. I’d love that. I’d love that. Mr. tough guy. You know, he’s Mr Tough Guy. You know when he’s Mr. Tough Guy? When he’s standing behind a microphone by himself.”
He’s a child.
The news that the Affordable Care Act is falling apart exactly as it’s Republican opponents predicted would be potent ammunition for any competent and focused Republican candidate. Instead, he blathered briefly and inaccurately about the program, and allowed himself to be drawn into a silly hypothetical. time-travel fisticuffs challenge from Joe Biden.
Peggy Noonan observed last week that a sane Donald Trump—speaking of hypotheticals—would have beaten Hillary Clinton in a landslide, but that unfortunately the one who is running is nuts. Here we had another demonstration of that. In a real campaign, the looming collapse of the Affordable Care Act, passed without bipartisan support, sold with lies, and taken to the finish line using Parliamentary tricks, would have been a major issue in the campaign, dominating the debates, and providing a crisis for Democrats with this late campaign development. This was, after all, supposedly the “signature accomplishment” of the Obama administration: an irresponsibly complex law that its supporters didn’t understand or even read, triggering much of the middle class anger that created Donald Trump’s disastrous candidacy. Never mind. Trump, as always, didn’t bother to do his homework or get his facts straight, wouldn’t think through his comments sufficiently to be coherent, and finally couldn’t resist reacting the goading by Biden, who had said he wishes he was in high school so he could take Trump “behind the gym.” Thus Trump handed the media yet another excuse to focus on something other than the real issues, and the failure of Barack Obama.
Well, I guess the fact that the GOP’s candidate for President is an idiot qualifies as an issue, but there are others.
I look forward to “fact-checkers” pointing to the Trump “lie” that Biden said he wanted to take him to “the back of the barn,” when he really said “gym.” That’s got to be worth at least four Pinnochios, right?
Ethics Alarms 
Why not read what Scott Adams posted yesterday:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party
The man has a talent for writing and expressing himself far greater than mine. and he lays it out perfectly.
Lays what out perfectly? I read it: he’s engaging in ad hominem attacks to deflect fair, legitimate and undeniably accurate criticism. Supporting a completely unfit and unstable candidate like Trump is indefensible. The fact that some of his critics engage in abusive tactics to express the criticism doesn’t invalidate the criticism. How does the fact that many Clinton supporters are enabling, corrupt, fascist bullies make Trump any better? It doesn’t.
Both Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and Thomas DiLorenzo support Donald Trump for President.
This is the first time I had heard them supporting a major party’s nominee.
Is anyone REALLY supporting anyone this cycle, or are they just saying they believe the other person is worse?
Because, let’s face it, if casting your ballot for someone is per se supporting them, then maybe the responsible thing to do this cycle is stay home.
You have to vote for someone, and it’s a binary choice. The whole campaign of both candidates is to make that vote against someone, not for anyone. There are, in fact, people, corrupt, weak, or radical, totalitarian minded people, who actually support Clinton…want her as President, believe in her ends justifies the means methods as for “the greater good.” There are also ignorant, angry, intellectually deficient people who really want don’t Trump. You know…morons.
Those are lies Americans tell themselves. You DON’T have to vote, and it’s NOT a binary choice. You SHOULD vote, and two candidates are MUCH more likely to actually win, but…
Should say… McMullin take Utah or Johnson take New Mexico, and perhaps another state or two it’s possible that the electoral college could get hung, at the very least if McMullin takes Utah it will be the first time someone without a D or R collected EC votes since the 60’s, and there will be some long and serious discussions about forming a new national party. Third parties haven’t been more relevant and less of a vote sink in a very, very long time.
“Those are lies Americans tell themselves.”
And it’s an insidious and irresponsible lie too, especially when pundits push it. It’s a lie that as long as it is pushed will guarantee there to be only 2 choices for the rest of time. It’s a scary lie to break however, because the only way to prove it wrong, is to tell people to vote FOR WHO THEY BELIEVE IN. 3rd Parties WILL lose this election and very likely the next one too. BUT THEY WILL NEVER win any election in 100 years if they don’t get to even start showing up in the first few – which is what the great “binary lie” is designed to do.
Put out the fire while it’s only a spark.
I think this is just wrong, and history backs me up. (And, of course, it is not a lie unless people saying it don’t believe it. I assure you, I do believe it.) Third parties increase the chances of bad candidates being elected. (See: Ventura, Jesse)The more parties there are that people think are viable, the more fractured the vote is and the more random the result is. (See: Italy). Majorities don’t work in multiple party elections. Meanwhile, when third parties that run unqualified, extreme candidates are rewarded, they have no motivation to be responsible. The Libertarian Party has been irresponsible.
Votes for third parties, or no votes at all, risk electing Donald Trump in 2016. The time to debate this issue is not now.
“Third parties increase the chances of bad candidates being elected.”
As is abundantly clear this year, “third” parties (alternative parties, to be more precise) also increase the chances of good candidates being elected.
Huh? Name a “good” third party candidate for 2016. Johnson, the idiot, who thinks ignorance is a virtue? Stein, the anti-vaxxer?
Evan McMullin, former CIA agent and senior adviser on national security issues for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, currently polling to take Utah?
Well, it would be a nice congruence with a KGB alum running Russia and all. But there is no way to find him qualified based on his experience. How much do we know about him? I’ve never seen him interviewed. Yeah, as a none of the above candidate, he’s better than the other four as far as we know.
“Third parties increase the chances of bad candidates being elected. (See: Ventura, Jesse)”
Clinton. Trump. *micdrop*
Seriously though, I actually think the opposite is true. Third parties leave people with more choices, and if the electorate is faced with 17 clowns and a serious candidate, the clowns split whatever based they have and give it to the serious candidate. What you’re describing just doesn’t follow into reality either logically or functionally. With as many choices as Canadians have with Justin Trudeau, Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair or Elizabeth May, it’s harder to get a majority… but any of them make a better national leader than anything your binary produced this cycle.
Except, of course, the one election we had where 4 candidates carried at least one state. Naturally, I am referring to 1860 where we elected what quite a few people saw as a very extreme candidate.
As an aside, and speaking of majorities in multiple party elections, it often seems to be the assumption that Lincoln couldn’t have won if the Democrats hadn’t fractured. In fact, it turns out he won an absolute majority of the vote in more than enough states to carry the election, despite not even being on the ballot in a number of other states.
Having followed Scott Adams on Twitter for quite a while–as a source of unintentional comedy–seeing someone here praise him is both amusing and disheartening.
Says the fellow who thinks Barry Deutsch is an exceptionally thoughtful cartoonist.
He is, and you didn’t really provide an argument otherwise last time–you simply disparaged the medium of cartooning itself. But let’s not get into that here.
Barry’s a very smart, sensitive, predictable social justice warrior who communicates progressive cant in cartoons. He’s talented, and I sometimes miss him here. He would benefit from being exposed to more diverse points of view.
I said that Twitter was an awful medium to have that discussion on. And I dare you to disagree with me.
There are certain things that certain mediums are better at than others. Serious, thoughtful, legitimate political discussions aren’t had in four panels. They just aren’t. Barry even agreed with me on that:
“I think it’s a common criticism of political cartoons – and it’s a hard-to-resist criticism, honestly, since most political cartoons (mine included) are more about “get in, make a point, get out” than about nuance.”
So if you have a narrative based cartoons that will invariably lack nuance because the format is particularly bad at supplying nuance… What’s the fucking point?! It’s not to have a legitimate, intelligent, thoughtful discussion, because those per se require nuance.
My take? They’re the guilty pleasures of biased hacks. Which, let’s put all the cards on the table, isn’t illegitimate as entertainment. But that’s about it. Barry is intelligent, his cartoons aren’t.
HT, is it your position that it’s simply impossible for a standard-length political cartoon to be “intelligent”–and therefore impossible for anyone to be considered an “exceptionally thoughtful cartoonist?”
If so, we’re never going to agree, but then I also don’t see the point of your initial dig.
Some mediums are just poorly designed for certain kinds of communication, and if someone attempts to have those kinds of communication on those mediums, well… it’s an uphill battle. I’m not saying it CAN’T be done, necessarily… But it more often than not will fail. And that’s on the creator… If the goal is to have thoughtful discourse and you fail… You’ve failed. It should be obvious why you’ve failed, and if you continue to do the same and fail… Well. I don’t know what you want from me here.
Is it impossible for a standard-length political cartoon to be “intelligent”? No, but I can’t think of any examples of someone getting this right. I can think of a LOT of people that got it wrong. *COUGH*DOONESBURY*COUGH*. Ahem, sorry. Is it “therefore impossible for anyone to be considered an “exceptionally thoughtful cartoonist?”” There might be exceptions…. But yeah, I could generally get behind that.
Again, I don’t see the point of your initial dig. My statement that Adams was a great source of unintentional humor is unrelated to his work as a cartoonist–Dilbert is fine–and has everything to do with the stupid, delusional things he says on Twitter as himself on a daily basis.
Because Scott Adams also blogs and links his (I think) actual thoughtful opinions, and links them on Twitter.
One of my favourites:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa
Because Scott Adams also blogs and links his (I think) actual thoughtful opinions, and links them on Twitter.
So does Barry. Your point?
The first two lines of your link:
On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
Good god. That’s what you think a “thoughtful opinion” is? Adams is an abject moron, an embarrassment, and that article is just more evidence.
“So does Barry. Your point?”
The difference is Scott Adam’s cartoons aren’t narrative driven, he’s thoughtful with a media that is appropriate and funny with a media that is appropriate.
“Good god. That’s what you think a “thoughtful opinion” is?”
It’s a whole lot more thoughtful if you read it in context. So you either stopped after those two lines, or are purposefully misinterpreting his point. Neither is particularly honest.
“On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.”
-Chris stopped here.-
“If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.
But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.
So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.””
“Oops, I should have read more” or, “I choose to put that through my progressive filter, and those first two sentences were obviously the most important ones”?
I did stop reading there, because it was intentionally inflammatory, and it sounded like the rest of it was going to be monumentally stupid. Having read the remaining portion that you quoted, you’ve not changed my opinion. It’s illogical partisan drivel, like every other political thought Adams shares. I mean, just look at this:
If there are no sponsored terror attacks before Election Day, it means ISIS prefers Clinton. They have the means. Think about it. #Trump
He’s also delusional:
I change my endorsement to Trump because I oppose bullying in all its forms: http://bit.ly/2eNrGUq #Trump #Clinton
Is Twitter shadowbanning me? If so, I see it as treason: http://bit.ly/2eiLsfF #Trump #Clinton
You’ve got to be kidding me. You are smarter than this, Humble. Act like it.
You know, as an exercise… You say a topic, and I’ll think of the most partisan progressive political position (wonderful alliteration!) related to that topic, and then we’ll compare it to Barry’s position on as issue. I don’t think you get to be called ‘exceptionally thoughtful’ when you’re as predictable as Old Faithful.
Boycotts against businesses that oppose gay marriage.
See… That’s a very specific topic… Which makes me think that you’ve presented it as a got’cha. And Barry’s an old school Liberal turned progressive (and a cartoonist to boot), so he might still have a healthy respect for free speech and the danger to it represented in a boycott. I think that he might actually be against boycotts in general. (Because I doubt he’d be in favour of boycotts in general, but against these ones.)
BUT. Let’s not concede the floor too quickly, because boycotting is indeed a time honoured progressive pastime, and that would seem to be a slam dunk for you. Sometimes progressives get so progressive they forget to hate conservatives and break on through to the other side. Even if Barry has a respect for free speech, he knows who reads his stuff, so I’d bet that he wouldn’t mention the words “free speech” in anything but the most tangential of ways, or as a derision. But how then does someone argue that someone shouldn’t be censored from saying horrible things?
Moral relativism. The kind of insanity that lets progressives ignore the horrible things Jihadis say and do in their homes because How Dare You Judge Their Culture! Maybe it’s a form of “We shouldn’t judge them” or maybe “They’re still not as bad as ‘x'” or “They’re just too stupid to know why they’re wrong, and they’ll never learn without me.”
How’d I do?
Pretty poorly. You were close on his ideas regarding boycotts, but then went off the rails when you got to this:
Even if Barry has a respect for free speech, he knows who reads his stuff, so I’d bet that he wouldn’t mention the words “free speech” in anything but the most tangential of ways, or as a derision.
Completely wrong. And then there’s this hallucination:
Moral relativism. The kind of insanity that lets progressives ignore the horrible things Jihadis say and do in their homes because How Dare You Judge Their Culture! Maybe it’s a form of “We shouldn’t judge them” or maybe “They’re still not as bad as ‘x’” or “They’re just too stupid to know why they’re wrong, and they’ll never learn without me.”
Not only does this bear no resemblance to anything Barry has ever said, it bears no resemblance to any progressive I’ve ever met. Your “predictable” progressives are a figment.
*grumbles* makes me search *grumbles*
http://amptoons.com/blog/?p=18603
“I’d bet that he wouldn’t mention the words “free speech” in anything but the most tangential of ways, or as a derision.”
Ctrl-F… “Free Speech”… One instance. In the tags.
“Conor Friedersdorf and I both oppose economically punishing people for opposition to same-sex marriage, or for having donated to the prop 8 campaign.”
Fair enough.
“Conor’s argument is, partly, that SSM opponents are morally superior to those who favored anti-miscegenation laws, and those who compare the two are being unfair to SSM opponents.”
I was wrong, Connor was the moral relativist, and Barry used his as a foil. For what, you ask:
“for the most part, we pick up our morality from what the people around us believe. Those of us who believe in marriage equality have, I am sure, a morally better position. But most of us don’t hold that position because we are inherently more moral people than those who disagree. Rather, most of us were just born into a place and a time in which we were raised to believe in the equal dignity and worth of queer people, and as a result we have either always been in favor of marriage equality, or easily adopted that position once it became socially acceptable.
My point is not that those who oppose SSM aren’t responsible for their own views and choices. People make their own choices, and can choose to oppose beliefs they were raised with, as the huge numbers of people who have changed their minds and now favor marriage equality have proven.
My point, instead, is that a simple “moral monsters versus decent people” analysis – whether it’s Conor’s contrasting of interracial marriage opponents versus SSM opponents, or the folks on the left who want opponents of SSM driven from their neighborhoods – is an unrealistic model of a much more complicated human reality.”
He opposes boycotts because it’s unrealistic to assume that people born to a less moral time will have more moral views, and it’s not their fault they think that way.
I don’t think Barry would ever be crude enough to write “They’re just too stupid to know why they’re wrong.” But this hits me as pretty close.
I’m trying to read that in the best way possible. If you have a better way, I’d be interested. But you’d have to address that Barry said that he’s not actually against boycotts in general, which means there’s a reason that these are different, and you’d have to identify what that reason is, and the mindset behind why that reason would exempt a boycott, as well as reconcile “My point is not that those who oppose SSM aren’t responsible for their own views and choices.” with the idea that that someone shouldn’t be held responsible for something that they’re ostensibly responsible for.
Also: “Not only does this bear no resemblance to anything Barry has ever said, it bears no resemblance to any progressive I’ve ever met. Your “predictable” progressives are a figment.”
Meet more people. Connor’s argument was “We shouldn’t boycott SSM opponents because Mixed Marriage opponents were worse.” Which is literally ““They’re still not as bad as ‘x’”” So even if it’s not Barry’s argument, he’s at least honest enough to admit someone says it.
Meet more people. Connor’s argument was “We shouldn’t boycott SSM opponents because Mixed Marriage opponents were worse.” Which is literally ““They’re still not as bad as ‘x’”” So even if it’s not Barry’s argument, he’s at least honest enough to admit someone says it.
Which is still different from the strawman argument about “jihadis” you presented, and in no way implies that people of any culture are not responsible for their own choices. Friedersdorf was talking about two anti-progressive positions held by American conservatives in the past and present; he was not making excuses for a minority group liberals favor, as in your previous example.
Trump v. Biden charity boxing? Who wouldn’t pay to see that?
Well to be fair to Trump, Biden started this whole think and “choose him off”. They’re both jerks and unethical. Trump predictably fell for Biden’s trap and got sidetracked from the serious Affordable Care Act issue. Behind the barn or gym, I really don’t want to see two senior citizens trying to whoop each other’s ass.
I agree with most of your comments here. Trump, if he were an adult and had the attention span of a gnat, would not have responded to it. But he is Trump. However, I would add the following to the 2016 Presidential Election Ethics Train Wreck:
1. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. The sitting Vice President. How, in the name of Mike, is that appropriate or ethical, Biden’s comments echo what Robert De Niro and host of other Hollywood elite have said. Where is the outrage over calls to violence by the Democrats and the peace-loving progressives?
2. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. Chris Matthews presents Biden with a pair of well-worn boxing gloves. How is that appropriate? If memory serves me correctly, Trump was obliterated by the media for bloviating that his supporters should pummel democrats.
3. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. Trump is excoriated for responding that he would take up the challenge. Wow.
4. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. The news media pounce on Trump’s uptake on the challenge, in another breathless, exasperated reporting of yet another example of Trump’s lack of fitness to be president. Where are the media on reports that the Affordable Care Act will implode on or about January 1, 2017? And, why didn’t it implode on January 1, 2016? Oh, that’s right. There’s a presidential election to deal with so we can’t have that distraction.
5. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. Where are the media reports that an FBI investigator’s spouse has intimate ties to the Clinton campaign? Could that have some bearing on the FBI’s recommendation not to prosecute the Democrat presidential nominee for crimes associated with the use of a completely vulnerable computer system? We are not sure because we are spending time talking about a Biden-Trump boxing match.
6. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. Yet, the economy is limping along, education costs are skyrocketing, insurance and medical costs are about reach the breaking point, and manufacturing jobs are fleeing overseas.
7. The sitting Vice President goes on to Chris Matthews’ show and says he would like to take a Republican presidential out behind a barn gym, or woodshed and beat him with a stick. The media seizes on it and ignores other pressing issues. For instance, in Houston, there is a proposition for funding issues relating to Houston Independent School District. It is part of the “Robin Hood” school financing program, whereby the wealthier school districts/counties have portions of their funding sent to poorer, under-performing school districts. The wording of the initiative is beautiful in its convolution. Houston Independent School District’s Proposition 1 asks voters to vote for or against letting HISD buy attendance credits (meaning HISD would send over $1 billion in recapture money to the state over a four-year time frame, even though 76.1% of HISD students come from disadvantaged or low-income families) from the state with their property taxes. In plain English, it’s a vote over whether to send money away to other school districts through recapture, also known as “Robin Hood,” where districts deemed “property wealthy” are required by state law to send money back to the state to give out to less affluent districts. However, what is not explained or explicit, is that a vote against the measure allows the state to ‘detach certain properties’ from the tax rolls and assign those ‘detached properties’ to other districts for funding purposes;. In essence, it allows the state to declare that building in downtown Houston ( in the heart of HISD and its attendant tax rates/payments) is located in a less-affluent district. That funding, then is paid to that district. That means that there really is no choice on this issue. It is simply a choice on who gets to decide where the tax money goes. News reporting on this has been minimal. But, we are arguing about who would win in a boxing match between Biden and Trump. Good grief.
I voted yesterday. It took me 10 minutes to go through the line, and yes, I presented my driver’s license to the kind lady verifying my identity (she gave me a cookie – I was happy). It took me 30 minutes to vote. Why? Because I stood there for 28 minutes staring, glaring, at the presidential ticket, the first item on the computerized ballot, and I just couldn’t bring myself to punch any of the buttons. The gentle lady from the Harris County elections commission offered to bring me a chair, some sedatives, and a towel to wipe my tears (she was worried the volume of water would damage the Soros owned-and-operated voting machines.)
I tried to write my own name in but it kept coming back as “Hillary Clinton”. Weird. I have to talk to George Soros about that. I thought about Frank Zappa, but he has passed away so he is not eligible. I was going to write in Jack Marshall, but I didn’t have his prior approval, so I couldn’t ethically do it. .
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. In the end, I simply decided to skip the presidential race. I find all of the candidates so thoroughly repugnant and unacceptable. Maybe I copped out. Maybe that was unethical. Maybe it wasn’t. Texas is going to Trump so it probably does not matter in the long run, but afterwards I felt dirty, ashamed that a venerable republican democracy will fall into the hands of one of two equally abhorrent and reprehensible people. Heaven help us.
jvb
Thank you for a wonderful comment, Sir! Most hearty (and heartfelt) thanks for explaining more about that Houston schools proposition. How confusingly can such a “choice” be constructed, for the sake of making it merely an opportunity to vote where there is NO choice?! What a rip-off!
Last night, I luckily (well, after all, that is me, Lucky) caught a few minutes of a late TV newscast (after Game 1 of the World Series). One segment covered how easy it is for a voter who selects the “straight party” or “straight ticket” option to err, when using the voting machines that I am most familiar with – resulting in negation of the intended vote. The tricks built into this so-called system are enough to make me want to RIOT. But then, maybe I am just thinking too far ahead for the moment, and will find plenty of cohorts in the coming months and years.
Soros owned-and-operated voting machines? Seriously? (Not that I would be surprised.) That guy’s lieutenants in the U.S. need to be stalked and taken out.